Wednesday, 16 November 2011

You'd think, wouldn't you, that in these austere times we'd be reining in on fripperies like prohibitionists with nothing else to do but spout anti-social garbage courtesy of the public purse.

Obviously not.

Take Jim Wells, for example, a hideous DUP rep in the Northern Irish Assembly. While the global economy buckles, this guy's prime concern is that you should be criminalised for smoking in your own car. And he cites the smoking ban in pubs as proof that all is hunky-dory.

We have not needed squads of enforcement officers calling at pubs and restaurants throughout Northern Ireland to enforce the ban. There has been a 99% compliance rate, and it has been voluntary.

'Voluntary' in the sense that people voluntarily choose to avoid the crippling fines his sort have disgustingly imposed on private property owners. Not that he makes mention of that aspect, of course.

I do not see police officers routinely stopping cars on motorways or dual carriageways to see whether there has been smoking or whether there is ash in the ashtray. It is more likely that large numbers of people will realise that it is illegal and will stop, and there will be enormous health benefits as a result.

Course they will. Because people 'voluntarily' stopped smoking in bars once he said so, nothing at all to do with the owner of the premises being in fear of his livelihood for allowing it.

But even if smoking drivers do decide that this is a law that is a disgrace, entirely counter-productive, and very easy to contravene - which it is - Wells has that covered too.

Equally, if someone is stopped for some other reason, perhaps for using a mobile phone or driving too fast, and the officer notices that he or she has been smoking, it may be added to the schedule of offences.

Doesn't it just make your very being glow that this berk is happy for fines to be imposed by the police on the premise that the odour in the car was a bit tobacco-ey?

This is what passes for political wisdom these days, sadly. Irresponsible Unionists (remember that this is the norn-iron equivalent of conservatism) who are so hypnotised by health lobbyists that they abandon their previously held principles of choice and rights over personal property.

Aren't we lucky that it's just a provincial anomaly whereby the power of local arroganzas is magnified way beyond their limited intellect by way of devolution?

Not really, no. Because at least he was talking in a debate which qualified which cars would be included. The British Medical Association have farmore sinister plans, and Westminster MPs are more than likely to adopt them at some point, the daft fuckers that they mostly are.

A review of compelling scientific evidence supporting a ban on smoking in motor vehicles is published today (Wednesday 16 November) in a new briefing paper1 from the BMA.

The BMA is calling on UK governments to introduce an extension to the current smoke-free legislation to include a ban on smoking in private vehicles.

Err, just to distinguish this from Wells's nonse, the BMA are talking about all private cars, whether others are in them or not.

Research compiled by the BMA shows that there is strong evidence that smoking in vehicles exposes non-smokers to very high levels of second-hand smoke. This is because of the restrictive internal environment in motor vehicles which exposes drivers and passengers to 23 times more toxins than a smoky bar. Children and other vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly, are particularly at risk from these health dangers.

And they are doing so by citing - in their 'compelling' evidence - a study which has long since been destroyed as being ... how can I put this? Non-existent.

There is no evidence to support the claim that smoking in cars is 23 times more toxic than in other indoor environments, according to a report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Ross MacKenzie and Becky Freeman, from the University of Sydney, have criticised the 'unsubstantiated' figure and plotted its path through both the mainstream press and scientific publications before become widely accepted as 'fact'.

Kim Barnhardt, of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, said: 'There is no evidence to support the fact that smoking in cars is 23 times more toxic than in other indoor environments.'

After that, they'll just shut it until the national lunchtime news and other assorted TV offerings.

Well, when lies are this good, can you blame the righteous Graunistas at the Beeb for grabbing it with both hands?

UPDATE: Nigel Farage has called the BMA out in typically direct fashion.

"That the BMA is prepared to either lie, or maybe even worse be incompetent is just clear evidence that they are not to be trusted in public."

"Nobody would encourage people to smoke, nor would anybody be wildly happy about, as they say, forcing children to breath your smoke. But have these pettifogging nincompoops ever heard of car windows?"

26 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I don't even smoke but I feel like taking it up again just to piss these people off!

It's up to us to defy them and carry on acting normally. A mass rally of cars with smokers inside is needed - a bit like the street smoking protest not that long ago, that saw some fcukwit councillor off.

These dangerous nutters need to be stopped because - as you've already pointed out DP - it will be another group targetd next.

These people are mentally ill - the same kind of illness that saw 6 million jews murdered for the 'common good' of Europe (not just Germany).

Just heard Simon Clark and a BMA person on R4. Asked why a ban when only the driver, she said that it would be easier for the police before (in the same breath) asserting that she wouldn't expect lone drivers to actually be prosecuted as happens with mobile phone use whilst driving.

The Beeb sank to a new low actually suggesting that smokers "kill babies" in cars.

Simon is still trying to engage with TC as a decent person, talking about education and consideration rather than legislation.

I do not see police officers routinely stopping cars on motorways or dual carriageways to see whether there has been smoking or whether there is ash in the ashtray.

These fascist fools are pathological liars.

Council wardens and Essex Police will carry out random inspections across the county to look for evidence of illicit cigarette use.

They will even hunt for cigarette butts in the ashtrays and smell the air inside the vehicles in order to clamp down on the outlawed practice.

Workers were banned from smoking in their company cars as part of the Health Act introduced in 2006.

The law made it illegal in all vehicles used primarily for business purposes by more than one person.

Anyone caught breaking the law faces a £50 fixed penalty fine or a possible court conviction, which carries a £200 fine.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8355435/Roadblocks-set-up-to-catch-drivers-smoking.html

So there are no misunderstandings: Did smoke - don’t smoke - neither pro or anti smoking - but pro freedom to make (in all aspects of life) your own decisions and take the consequences

The problem with cigarette smoke is that you can see it and smell it. But this may also be an advantage. When the level is too high smokers generally open a window and/or use the cars ventilation system and out it goes. The real problem in cars is surely what you cannot see. The carbon monoxide, and other nastiness, from the vehicle itself and the other vehicles around it. It was once stated (truth unknown) that a good whiff of diesel fumes was the equivalent of smoking a thousand cigarettes. I think, though I have never tried it, that if you inhaled exhaust fumes in equal volume to the smoke inhaled from one cigarette you would either die or be seriously ill. There must be a whole gang of ASH supporters, too frightened to try the cigarettes, who would willingly volunteer to try the fumes. Studies will then show……………………

Today on LBC the British Lung Foundation claimed that over 300,000 CHILDREN per year in the UK go the hospital with smoking related diseases due to exposure to smoke.Love to see the facts on that.Its party time out there, just make up any numbers you want and scream them out.

Some might think that this is the moment when the BMA "Jumped the shark", but more likely is that in seeking to get smoking in cars banned when children are present they deliberately overeexaggerate and overreach so that politicians can say "well yes we did ban smoking in cars with children" but we stopped short of going the whole hog that the BMA recommended.

I heard this on Radio 2 News last night and early hours of this morning when they, mistakenly possibly, said that the concentration of smoke in a vehicle was 23 times that of in a smokey pub (fat chance - of a smokey pub, I mean)! If that were the case then drivers would surely be done for dangerous driving as they would not be able to see out of the vehicle!This morning on BBC Breakfast it was the lead story insofar as it was the first one mentioned.

There was a report showing a guy smoking (ciggie actually just sitting in his mouth, albeit lit) and some monitoring device which apparently showed how toxic it was, even with the window open! Immediate thought? Monitoring device rigged, just like the 'science' nowadays, obviously.

Smokers who drive for a living still smoke in their vehicles and unless they have been chain smoking with all windows closed tight, it is very difficult to smell any evidence of smoking!

Ultimately, if the government want far more deaths and injuries on our roads, then carry on. Drivers will still smoke, but try and be covert about it which means that they will not be so attentive to the road in the right sense; there will also more chance of dropping a ciggie in these circumstances as well as reaching for out of reach 'ashtrays' to stub out or trying to hang on to the butt until it looks safe enough to dispose of out of the window, so as not to leave any evidence in the vehicle.

Tired drivers on a long drive or driving home from a long shift at work smoke to stay alert, if they decide not to flought the law they are more likely to have an accident.

I have no actual facts or figures for my statements above, just common sense and my own experiences, along with what other smokers have said to me. Guess though that makes my above statements a lot more credible than the corrupt 'science' spouted by the BMA, ASH or any other quangoes !

As a Northern Ireland resident, may I just add that you are indeed correct about Jim Wells...the man is an arsehole.Give these little Hitlers an Assembly and the sniff of power, they'll deliver all kinds of nonsense legislation, but ask them to deliver jobs and lower taxes, they havent a fucking clue.

So, let me get this right. As I am driving along, alone in my Mazda MX-5 Roadster with the hood down, peacefully enjoying the 20th Rothman's of the day in the fresh air, I am apparently to be prosecuted for potentially (but unproven) compromise to the health of all my passengers ?

Unusually for me, I feel some urge to defend the BBC on this one. The fact that the BMA have taken this stance is newsworthy so we would expect the BBC to cover it. They have avoided the trap of presenting opinion as fact and they have tried to balance their website article. Furthermore, their local radio stations have sought to include opposing views from Snowdon, Nurse and Atherton which is progress.

I can even partially forgive them for it making the “front page” as it is not quite every day that a repulsive Orwellian organisation lies in public. It is also not the BBCs fault that Vivienne Nathanson lied through her teeth about the evidence on The Today programme. At least someone asked the question which is something of a breakthrough and she was up against Simon Clark which in my view exposed her as the utterly unpleasant authoritarian that she is.

We might be collectively better off by using the BBC in as far as we can to continue to expose the BMA for being a political club for privileged mendacious bullies who believe themselves to be immune from criticism because they crammed for a medical degree at some point in their lives.

It is notable that the story was less popular than the BBCs detailed coverage of Cameron impersonating Julia Gillard’s accent http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15753370 . We can only pray that the impersonation ends there but the man does believe that the smoking ban is a success. In doing so he inadvertently endorses the repressive dishonest behaviour of people like Nathanson.

I see that the Mail Online has the report. It has a picture of the Dr Vivienne Nathanson (she who said that it is time to denormalise alcohol). Take a look - I think that you will agree that she will be keeping her head down in the obesity matter!

Hold on a minute,a smoking ban incars might stir up a few morecap doffing,yellow bellied,whitefeathered,chicken livered,cowardly,apathetic,compliant,spittle lickingsmokers into a bit of action.Might just get them to get of their butts,switch of the tellys and their invisible warrior PCsjust might attract some new bloodwith some tripe in their trolleys.Apart from the obvious stalwartsin blogdom ,there are still to manypansies fluttering around the etherAs for the two bit prat from theDUP in Northern Ireland,now that he cant rant and rave about Catholics and Popes he's found another minority he can pick on.What a complete and utter insectand some half wits have voted for him(IT)

As disturbing as it is that they can not just bend the truth (which we expect) but can blatantly lie, without shame, about their "new evidence", I'm not overly concerned. Indeed, such a move could quite easily backfire.

Anti-tobacco are at a tipping point. Despite their best efforts, most people now acknowledge the smoking ban as the number one reason we have 15% fewer pubs than we had 4 years ago. Despite their best efforts, most people (with the exception of a few Internet sociopaths and paid employees) still don't give a damn about smoking and see it as a trivial issue (just look at the comments sections in the Press - even the usually frothing-mad Mail is usually massively against the various anti-smoking stories). And they are looking at the very real possibility of getting their funding cut - just look at Alcohol Concern. In addition, they have literally nowhere else to go - only outdoor bans and car bans. And both of these measures are doomed to fail. Once enacted, they will be widely ignored as there is no way they can 1) Force other people to police it at pain of losing their livelihood, as they did with landlords, and 2) Because it is up to the smoker and there is no risk of getting anyone else (like your friendly publican) in trouble, it will be ignored. So they will essentially only succeed in passing a law that shows how "popular" anti-smoking measures REALLY are (when there isn't the threat of enormous fines hanging over you)as everyone will ignore it, and when they have passed that widely ignored law there will literally be nowhere else for them to go.

They are painting themselves into a massive corner. I really think we may be seeing their final days...

Good link to the Nicky Campbell show over at Frank Davis' place. An oncologist argues for air filtration, says smoking bans in cars (and pubs!) goes too far and says that smoking needs the presence of HPV to contribute to lung cancer. Also says, smoking can reduce stress which can in turn reduce cancer risk.

The BBC pumped this story relentlessly all day. In every region and on every platform. They refused to listen to objections to the BMA stats (I listened to BBC Sussex and the interviewer went mad when it was sugested they were relying on 'junk science', as others had experienced).

It went on and on. Radio 4, BBC Breakfast on 5Live, an hour long phone-in with Arnott centre stage, BBC news all day, TV breakfast show, absolute rot from antis going unchallenged whereas anyone with a differing view was slaughtered.

The BBC have set in the public's minds that smoking in a car for three minutes or so is 23 times more dangerous than spending a couple of hours in the foggiest pub, pre-ban, that each listener could remember.

During all this, not one of their bloggers or 'analysts' even considered dipping into our world and pointing out that the BMA were either lying, or exhibiting a woeful ineptitude which renders their status as not fit for purpose.

This is, after all, an institution which constantly reminds us that it is unbiased, conscientious, and a world leader in detached news-gathering. Either they're shit at objective journalism, pathetically exaggerating their credentials, or - worse - happy to disseminate information which they know to be untrue.

I stand by my headline. The BBC lied, lied, and lied again today. There can be no other conclusion.

Absolutely no need for the sorry Dick, I love honest debate and will never complain about anyone disagreeing with me provided that they do so based on reasoned argument. I cut a line from my original text in which I had planned to say “missed 5 live but assume it was the usual sycophantic crap”. I should have kept it in. Radio 5 is truly awful with even the plausible Peter Allen turning out to be a broken reed.

However, my point still stands. We can never shout down the BBC so we have to try to make our case however difficult that is and keep attacking bad practice at the BBC. However bad the disease that afflicts the corporation the signs that I pointed out today are positive and suggest that at least some change may be achievable. The alternative is hard to imagine and very depressing

I have devoted a huge amount of personal time and effort into achieving pitifully small victories at the BBC and am now very tired. Chris Snowdon is a witness to many of my efforts. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of deception and wrongdoing, the BBC instinctively supports the establishment, especially if the establishment is left of centre.

Mainly because of the smoking ban, but because of a lot of other dictatorial practices going on in UK also, I not only gave up my occasional watching of BBC news but also switch off any recent dramas or soaps coming out of BBC as I don't enjoy watching them anymore, even dramas, as I do not trust them nor want to be supportive of their obvious bias. They've also made the dramas so damn boring having removed all traces of smoking with a fine tooth comb, even from historical pieces in which certain real life characters are well known to have been smokers. If they can't even display it for historical purposes, then I can no longer stand watching their shows, simple as that. US media is no different of course.

Really? Every car I've driven or been in since about 1960 has had built-in ventilation, changing the air inside at least once a minute. I suspect that the smokey pub (should you be able to find one) would be worse, although frankly I'd quite welcome it. Beer doesn't taste the same...

Oh, and on the Nanny state subject, how about this from Australia, of all places?

If Nigel Farage were one the contestants for the Republican nomination for president I'm convinced he would win. He makes the bland, mechanical Mitt Romney look like wind-up Ken Doll. I like the fact that Herman Cain is subtly dropping the hint that the war on smoking will end under his helm when he states that he'll 'let people be people' (which translates to I'll veto any nanny state legislation from the Democrats that crosses my desk). I plan to vote for Ron Paul but if Nigel Farage was on the ballot, he would get the nod from me.

The acuate Farage would clearly wipe the floor with a nicotine-starved Obama in a debate. I would love to see it.